2012-11 Nov 1 2012 PBM
Page 1 of 13 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board November 1, 2012 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. in the Assembly Room
of the Historic County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Richard Collier, Chairman
Dan Hilla, Vice Chairman Shawn Ralston, Planning Manager Lisa Mesler Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Tamara Murphy Sam Burgess, Senior Planner
Anthony Prinz Nicole Dreibelbis, Current Planner David Weaver Kenneth Vafier, Senior Zoning Compliance Official Absent: Andy Heath Chairman Richard Collier opened the meeting by welcoming
the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Richard Collier reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Approval of the October
Planning Board Meeting Minutes Chairman Collier stated that board members did not not receive the October meeting minutes; therefore, the minutes would be approved at the next meeting.
Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-923, 11/12) -Request by Walter Pete Avery on behalf of Bladenboro Properties, LLC to rezone approximately 2.12 acres of right-of-way and land at 2616, 2620,
& 2624 Castle Hayne Road from R-20 Residential to CZD (B-1) Conditional Zoning District Business. The site is classified as Transition according to the 2006 CAMA Land Classification
Map. Sam Burgess presented the staff summary and provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning. Mr. Burgess also showed maps,
aerials, video and photographs of the property and the surrounding area.
The purpose of this class is to provide for future intensive urban
development on lands that have been or will be provided with necessary urban services. The subject 2.12 acres property is currently zoned R-20 Residential or low density development.
Other zoning districts nearby include AR Airport Residential to the
Page 2 of 13 east, B-1 Neighborhood Business to the south, a Shopping Center district to the west, O&I Office and Institution to the north, along with R-20 Residential adjacent and to
the north of the subject property. The shopping center and B-1 and B-2 districts were most likely established as a response to the street node that was created years ago at North Kerr
Avenue and Castle Hayne Road. The level of service along this segment of Castle Hayne Road is E, meaning the road is at design capacity and traffic delays are experienced from time to
time. A residential home located at the far rear of the properties is proposed to be removed. The site plan proposes a 21 feet high, 8,050 square foot retail facility with 34 parking
spaces. A stormwater pond will be located in the rear of the property, along with a proposed septic tank. Access to the facility will be from Castle Hayne Road. Landscaping, buffer yards,
and street yards appear to meet the zoning ordinance. The conditional use district proposal from R-20 Residential to B-1 Neighborhood Business appears to be a logical extension with
the existing B-1 District adjacent and south of the property. The petitioner and his client have not revealed a specific use or uses
owth and development encourage the placement of commercial uses along major or minor arterials and within reasonable close proximity to commercial nodes or
intersections. While encroachment into established residential districts is discouraged, the subject properties have lost the residential appeal they once had due to the overall growth
of the County that exploded beginning in the early nineties (over 5% increase between 1990-2010). Residential growth has created demand for commercial services. The proposal is estimated
to have a minimal impact on traffic. The proposed buffers and setbacks should mitigate negative impacts to adjacent residential properties to the north and east. Staff recommends approval
approval of the rezoning request with the following conditions: 1) Retail hours be limited between 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. to mitigate any adjoining residential property concerns; 2)
Specifying a specific use or uses for the property; 3) Include in the petition a small shoehorn shaped portion of AR Airport Residential zoning located in the northeastern corner at
4620 Castle Hayne Road; 4) Placement of lighting be erected in a downward fashion to reduce light pollution; 5) The construction of a transit site (based on WAVE standards) with shelter
fronting the property; 6) Approval of a septic tank permit and; 7) The mitigation of trees (pecan, dogwood, and oak) located on site. Chairman Collier opened the public hearing and recognized
the applicant. Walter Pete Avery spoke on behalf of the petitioner, Bladenboro Properties and others. He reported the required community meeting was held, during which there was no opposition
to the
the building was laid out on the property because it is close to the property line. If the property is zoned B-1 and his property is zoned B-1, there would be zero lot line. He noted
if the building is
Page 3 of 13 too close to the property line, it would be required to meet certain fire resistance rating requirements for the exterior wall. The wall would be a non-combustible wall,
minimally a one-hour fire rating because the exterior wall will be a metal panel. There is some brick proposed for the building as well. Mr. Avery stated in terms of the Land Use Plan,
the proposal is consistent with the policies for growth and development of the County. They also feel the proposed use is appropriate for the general area. They feel the proposed use
and expansion of the zoning classification to these properties is consistent with the general commercial node that is currently in place in the area. He noted they had debated about
whether they should request a straight B-1 zoning because of the nearby Shopping Center, Office & Institutional, and B-2 zoning districts. The subject property is in a state of disrepair.
One of the homes has recently been foreclosed on and has been purchased by Bladenboro Properties. He noted they do not have full ownership of the other properties currently, but do have
Appointment of Agent forms for those properties. The other home on the property is in disrepair and will be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Mr. Avery stated the site
plan speaks for itself and meets all the requirements for the site design, although there will be some tweaking of the stormwater pond and the septic field �
�which states the site can handle
the proposal. Cape Fear Public Utility Authority has sewer available there, but some major upgrades to a pump station on private property for a development that went bankrupt has hamstrung
that process. Accordingly, Land Management provided a favorable soils report that indicates a septic tank will work on that property. Compliance with all the other requirements for for
setbacks and buffers has been done, but the �
�the only place to put it u
done on the property for stormwater. The size of the stormwater pond may dictate the final size of the building and location of parking. The configuration of the site plan
presented is the configuration the petitioners would like to have approved. Mr. Avery stated the proposed rezoning before the board includes two larger, deeper properties, one of which
is owned and one that is under contract, and a third property, owned by Mr. Rhames, which was added to accommodate some of the site design issues related to setbacks and buffers. Later,
it was discovered that the property just north of the Rhames tract is also owned by Mr. Rhames and consists of two properties similar in size, one of which has a house on it. Mr. Avery
asked if it would be possible to add the other Rhames property into the rezoning petition without having to wait thirty days to have another community meeting and go back before the
Planning Board because the board can consider substantial changes in petitions based on the advertisement.
particular request and continue with the original proposal that encompasses three lots with the B-1 Conditional Use Zoning for the property.
He asked for clarification of whether the additional property could be included in their request. Chairman Collier asked the county attorney to provide an assessment of
to add the property to the north to the rezoning proposal. Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman asked if the owner of the the other property was present.
Page 4 of 13 Mr. Avery noted the owner was not present, but he had an Appointment of Agent form for him because he owns one of the properties included in the original request. He noted
the owners of �
�the matter. Ms. Huffman advised that the board should not consider rezoning the additional property unless the owners of the parcels adjacent to that property were present to
provide input. Mr. Avery withdrew the request to rezone the additional piece of property. He then stated he had discussed at length the conditions recommended by staff with the representatives
of Bladenboro Properties and they do not have any issues with those conditions, with the exception of the bus �
�appropriate location for a shelter would be in the shopping center across the street,
as opposed to their small piece of isolated property that is not part of a larger development. However, if staff is insistent, they would be willing to grant an easement on their property
to WAVE if they would like to build a bus shelter there. Mr. Avery concluded the presentation by asking the board to grant approval of the request and offering to answer any questions
the board may have. No one from the public spoke in support of or in opposition to the rezoning request. Chairman Collier closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Chairman Collier
asked for a clarification of previous conditions related to a bus/transit shelter,
money for WAVE to build it in the future. Anthony Prinz explained generally a sidewalk and a concrete pad
are installed with an easement and then WAVE would install the transit shelter, noting it was dependent upon discussions with WAVE. �
�where you have ridership. The Castle Hayne route does run along this road in both
directions, if there was enough ridership in the area to justify the investment of a shelter. He asked if staff had communicated with
WAVE and documented whether they are interested in maintaining a shelter in this particular location. stated the intersection is served by Transit Route 207
and part of their short range transportation plan is to continue to serve the area. In terms of the specific site, staff was unable to obtain concrete information from WAVE. If their
transportation plan changes over time based on on ridership, it would be best to recommend that the location be reserved and that staff work with WAVE to determine if that would be a
suitable location. Chairman Collier asked in regard to condition #5, if staff would be satisfied if the developer reserved an easement in a size to be determined for the transit stop.
He then asked if that condition would be acceptable to the petitioner.
Page 5 of 13 Mr. Avery agreed the petitioner would be glad to grant an easement for the purpose of a transit stop if WAVE chose to have a shelter at that location and it fit into their
planning process. Mr. Avery commented there is no recommendation, however, by staff for a sidewalk on this particular proposal. He noted that may work because people still use footpaths
to get to areas. Chairman Collier stated they would re-craft the wording on the condition for a transit stop easement in a size to be determined by staff if the rezoning moves forward.
He then asked if board members had any other questions for the applicant. Mr. Prinz stated the applicant had mentioned that condition #2 was amenable for the application, meaning he
would specify the types of uses that would be allowed in this district. Mr. Avery stated the proposal is for a general merchandising facility similar to their request for the property
on Carolina Beach Road and Horn Road. He is not at liberty to divulge the specific brand or name of the business, but it will be general merchandising dealing in durable goods and some
non-durable goods. Mr. Prinz commented qualify
that in zoning terms as was done with the property on Horn Road. Mr. Avery stated that would be fine. The ordinance specifies general merchandising and miscellaneous retailing for this
particular type of building. Mr. Prinz asked if Mr. Avery was interested in limiting the uses to those particular uses. Mr. Avery acknowledged he was interested in limiting the uses
to general merchandising and miscellaneous retail. He noted if the business went bad later, they would come back before the board to request a different use. Mr. Prinz stated his goal
would be to narrow the uses down to minimize the impact on the surrounding area, but also provide the petitioner with enough latitude to make the property lucrative. Mr. Avery stated
merchandising would be contrary to their long
term use of the property. He noted the use is a natural fit for the area in their perspective. Mr. Prinz then asked about the shoe horn shaped portion of AR located on a separate parcel
behind the proposal. Mr. Avery stated that property has nothing to do with their property. Based on the site plan and the surveys, that portion of AR property is located on another parcel
located south of the proposal. It appears to be part of the AR district next door to the proposal. He commented he He stated he
felt it would be best to leave it out and have staff bring back a clean-up amendment at a later date.
Page 6 of 13 Mr. Prinz think the board should take action on it. Mr. Prinz asked staff if
they had noticed any indication of pedestrian activity there, such as a worn footpath along the roadway indicating a need for a sidewalk, during their site visit. He noted it was odd
not to see a recommendation for a sidewalk based on recent requirements to construct sidewalks on properties that front major roadways. Mr. Burgess stated there may have been some semblance
of a footpath, but they had not observed any significant evidence of pedestrian traffic. Mr. Prinz asked if plans indicated a need for sidewalks in that area. Mr. Burgess stated the
Wrightsboro Plan did not indicate a need for sidewalks in the area. In response to a question from Mr. Prinz, Mr. Burgess affirmed the Wrightsboro Plan was done in 1991. Mr. Prinz stated
he personally thought a sidewalk would be a welcomed addition to the area and felt it would be a better investment than a WAVE transit station. Chairman Collier stated understanding
that a pump station would need to be upgraded to get the site on the CFPUA system. Mr. Avery stated staff may be able to provide more detail. There was a proposed subdivision behind
the shopping center district that had a pumping station that was going to be upgraded that would allow for greater flow in the existing force mains that actually run across in front
of the
subdivision are out of business now. to upgrade the pump station because they have other priorities. There is �
�
permit to develop their property. He stated they would abandon a septic tank if they had the ability to obtain sewer. Chairman
Collier asked if the petitioner would be willing to set the site up for sewer so that it would be easier to extend sewer to the site. Mr. Avery replied maybe not.
be ten years before sewer is available to the site. The soils report provided by Craig
Turner of Land Management indicates the site will support a septic system. The capacity needs for this type of project are very low. Mr. Avery affirmed the petitioner was agreeable to
the other conditions recommended by staff, with the exception of transit stop. In regard to a sidewalk, he noted he had not seen any signs of pedestrian traffic on the site. He commented
the right-of-way is not maintained very well and there is some dispute about the actual right-of-way width in that area. He stated his personal opinion was that a sidewalk there at this
point in time would be tantamount to a white elephant.
Page 7 of 13 Without sewer, it could be years before other properties get developed out there. Mr. Avery stated he thinks it is a good idea to have sidewalks on major thoroughfares,
but he would be the only one with a sidewalk in the area. Chairman Collier d today. It may
be that instead of an easement for a bus stop, an easement for a future sidewalk, in the event it is needed. Mr. Avery stated the petitioner would be happy to accommodate an easement
for a sidewalk existing configuration for parking on the street frontage. He noted most sidewalks are located
in the right-of-way. Vice Chair Dan Hilla at the present time. Noting most of the time sidewalks
are located in the right-of-way, he asked if there would be a need for an easement for a sidewalk there. there. Anthony Prinz explained that unfortunately there is no curb and gutter
in that area so a sidewalk would have to be on private property for NCDOT to permit it. Chris O added this type of situation will come before the board again and again in
the future. Without curb and gutter, the distance between the edge of pavement and where the sidewalk could be generally will make it impossible to fit into the existing right-of-way
already owned by NCDOT. In a situation like this with a tightly compact site plan, it will be difficult to compel the property owner to construct a sidewalk�
�site. Anthony Prinz stated if the five foot easement for a sidewalk could be accommodated, it would be a great thing to do. Sidewalks are
going to be needed in that area eventually. We have to start somewhere, although this may not be the place to start in this area of the county. We are living in an urbanizing county.
Driving is becoming more expensive, people are more health conscious, and alternative types of transportation are becoming more prevalent. Mr. Avery responded, noting it would be difficult
to accommodate a five foot easement on the site because of the geometrics of the site and the layout. It is designed at an angle with extra wide drive aisles because of the way delivery
trucks will have to serve this property. There is no room to shift back. Chairman Collier stated if a five foot easement is required for a sidewalk sid
ewalk will be built in anytime soon, he thinks the street yard requirement will be met based upon the proposed design because it is being met to the right-of-way. Mr. Avery
in the future and make the proposal nonconforming
and require him to fix it at his expense. During discussion, Chairman Collier asked Mr. Avery to confirm the wedge-shaped portion of AR zoning is located on the property he is representing.
Page 8 of 13 Mr. Avery stated there is apparently a wedge-shaped piece of property on their parcel that is actually zoned AR. That area is not included in the proposal.
property line. The petitioner has no objections however to that area being included. Sharon Huffman asked Chairman Collier to confirm the location
of the AR zoned property, noting if it located within the blue lines, she is not concerned about it. Chairman Collier asked for confirmation the AR zoned property is located on the subject
property. Anthony Prinz made a motion to recommend approval of rezoning request Z-923 to rezone the property from R-20 Residential to Conditional Zoning District Business B-1 with the
following conditions: 1) Retail hours be limited to between 9am and 9pm to mitigate impact on residential properties; 2) Limit the specific uses of the property to General Merchandise
Stores and Miscellaneous retail; 3) Include a small wedge-shaped portion of AR Airport Residential zoning located on the northeastern portion of the property; 4) Placement of lighting
be directed in a downward fashion to reduce light pollution; 5) A pedestrian access easement or sidewalk easement be included along the frontage of the
property; 6) Approval of a septic tank permit be obtained; and 7) Trees removed from the site be mitigated in accordance with the zoning ordinance. Vice Chair Dan Hilla seconded the
motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-923 with conditions. Item 2: Text Amendment (A-405, 10/12) -
-Zoning Ordinance to clarify the process for obtaining a formal extension of an approved planning action. �
� Shawn Ralston presented the revisions to the amendment, noting noting the item was continued
from the October meeting in order for staff to clarify the language. The amendment is proposed because there is currently only one section of the ordinance that addresses extensions.
That section allows for an extension if the application for the extension is applied for prior to the expiration of a permit and also states that an extension can only be granted by
the Board of Commissioners for a six month extension. Due to the economy and the amount of projects that are seeking extensions and the fact that the permit extension act will expire
at the end of this year, staff wanted to provide another mechanism that is not quite as onerous for people to go through the process of applying for an extension. Ms. Ralston reviewed
the changes made to the proposed amendment since the October meeting, �
�removed and replaced with the following language:
Page 9 of 13 The Planning and Inspections Director may grant a one-year extension so long as site conditions have not substantially changed since the original petition was approved.
If site conditions have substantially changed, the Board of Commissioners will consider whether an extension shall be granted during a regularly scheduled public meeting. The total vesting
period may not exceed five (5) years. This amendment would allow the Planning and Inspections director to offer a one year extension. The director currently does not have that ability.
It also would allow the Commissioners to consider an extension if site conditions have changed. Per a question from Chairman Collier, Ms. Ralston confirmed the other pages of the amendment
addressed the cycling through of those changes to other areas of the ordinance. Anthony Prinz asked if an extension request considered by the County Commissioners would be conducted
as a public hearing similar to a rezoning action. Ms. Ralston confirmed that an extension request considered by the County Commissioners would be a public hearing. Chairman Collier opened
the public comment portion of the hearing. No one from the public spoke in support of or in opposition to the amendment. Chairman Collier closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Dan Hilla
made a motion to recommend approval of Amendment A-405 to the Commissioners. Tamara Murphy seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Text Amendment A-405.
Item 3: Text Amendment (A-408, 10/12) -Zoning Ordinance to create a by right R-7: Medium Density
District. This item was continued from the stated the text amendment was
presented at the October meeting and staff was asked to review two items in the R-7 district, which is proposed to allow for a medium density residential district with six units per
acre on 7,000 square foot lots. The setbacks are laid out inside the ordinance and were discussed at the previous meeting. reported that two changes are proposed
to address concerns expressed by board members at the October meeting. First, in regard to access requirements, the ordinance suggests that R-7 districts could only be located on arterial
roadways or collector roadways. Staff has clarified where that information would come from and has cited the Federal Highway Approved Functional Classification
Map, which includes very fine detail. The map shows arterials and collectors. There are not many collector streets in the unincorporated county and part of the intent of the R-7 district
is to promote medium density in areas where that type of density is appropriate. With only a few collector streets in the county, staff wants people to be able to build collector streets
that meet collector
street standards that were adopted by
Page 10 of 13 NCDOT; therefore, language has also been included to incorporate streets built to collector street standards. stated the second change addresses
setbacks where the R-7 district was going to include attached residential units. The previous version of the ordinance established setbacks based on a factor of 2.75 times the height
of the structure so new attached residential structures could be located 2.75 times the height of those buildings from an adjacent detached single family �
�research of several other districts
with similar densities shows there is a range of setbacks and 35 feet is somewhere in the middle of that range and is consistent with some other setbacks in the zoning ordinance. Therefore,
staff is proposing a 35 feet setback for attached residential units adjacent to detached residential districts. David Weaver stated the R-7 district is great; however, he is concerned
about the person with a nice single family home in an R-15 or R-20 district who suddenly faces the prospect of a thirty-five (35 feet tall attached dwelling structure within 35 feet
of his backyard. Under the existing setback with the 2.75 factor, a 35 feet tall building would have to be setback 87 feet from the property line, instead of 35 feet. He would personally
prefer the larger setback for the taller
explained the thought expressed at the October meeting was that most of the R-7 districts will be conditional districts and the setbacks will be an item item that could be laid out on
a site plan. If there were concerns about buffering between buildings or the potential that the setback was only 35 feet, then those issues could be addressed through the site plan.
He noted Mr. Weaver made a good point because the ordinance would allow that if not considered. Mr. Prinz pointed out the setback would be up to 44 feet in a V zone. Vice Chair Hilla
stated the other reason for the reduced setback was the anticipation that the district will be used on a lot of infill sites and
zone that will not be used. Mr. Weaver stated he appreciated Mr. Hillapoint and that is one of the reasons he loves the concept of the R-7 zone.
He commented if he could be assured that R-7 would basically be a CD zone when it came into being and the board could look at the buffers on an individual basis, he would be okay with
it, but there is certainly no guarantee that will happen. Mr. Prinz given
the fact that none of these zones actually exist, it would be up to the board to be the gatekeeper on whether something is pushed forward as a straight rezoning or becomes a conditional
rezoning. He felt the board had done really well in the last few months encouraging people to come forward with conditional zonings rather than straight rezonings because as the county
urbanizes, there is more friction between developers and property owners about what the development should look like and the uncertainty of the straight rezoning. Mr. Prinz remarked
that he thought the R-7 district amendment was a good proposal in all aspects.
Page 11 of 13 Mr. Weaver stated he would vote for the R-7 district regardless, so if everyone generally felt the county would be safe enough with the probable use of the CD designation,
he was agreeable to moving forward. Ms. Ralston clarified that projects would still have to comply with the minimum twenty (2 feet buffer �
� for the buffer. The buffer width would have to be 20 feet
more. Mr. Weaver ,
but he is okay with proceeding. Tamara Murphy asked if the minimum setback 35 feet with an allowable reduction down to 25 feet or is it just 35 feet. She noted Section 4A-1(i) regarding
Reductions and Setbacks reads a �
�asked if that was supposed to be 35 feet. stated the ordinance allows for a reduction in the setback if additional buffering is provided.
Chairman Collier stated the setback could be reduced to 25 feet. said as a practical example if the entire buffer was filled with tall, full-bodied trees and the
proposal was to save all of those trees, it might completely screen from view the 35 feet structure so he felt there was good reason to have the reduction potential to incentivize saving
a solid, existing buffer. Chairman Collier commented these situations will all be rezonings so there will be the potential to discuss them regardless. He asked if board members had any
other questions for staff. Seeing none, he asked if there was a motion for the R-7 zoning, which he feels is fantastic and long overdue. Dan Hilla made a motion to recommend approval
of A-408 to the County Commissioners with the changes as written. David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Text Amendment A-408. Chairman
Collier thanked staff for their work on the R-7 zoning district, noting he liked the district and as stated by Mr. Hilla, they want to make sure it is usable as an infill district. Item
4: Text Amendment (A-409, 11/12) -of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the term
Building and/or Structure. Shawn Ralston stated the amendment is found in the Definitions section located at the very beginning of the zoning ordinance and is proposed to clarify the
definition of the term Structure and/or Building. Staff felt a term should not be used to define itself
Page 12 of 13 removed from the definition. In addition, fences are not regulated in the zoning ordinance and staff is unsure what poster panels would be other than similar to a fence;
therefore, that language was also removed. The amended definition (new language underlined) would read: Structure and/or Building: Anything constructed or erected within a fixed location
on the ground, or attached to something having a fixed location on the ground. The terms building and/or structure shall be construed to include porches, decks, carports, garages, sheds,
roof extensions, overhangs eprojections directly attached to the structure and/or building. Ms. Ralston explained
if projections are not attached, they become an accessory structure and the setback is less. If a projection is attached, the setback will be measured from the structure and the attachment.
Chairman Collier asked if board members had any questions for staff. Hearing none, Chairman Collier opened the public portion of the hearing. No one from the public spoke in support
or in opposition of the proposed amendment. Chairman Collier closed the public hearing and asked for a motion from the board. Anthony Prinz made a motion to recommend approval of A-409
to the Board of Commissioners. Tamara Murphy seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Text Amendment A-409. Item 5: Text Amendment (A-411, 11/12) -
Zoning Ordinance to clarify when roof overhangs are used as the
reference point to measure building setbacks. Shawn Ralston stated when there are two commercial districts adjacent to each other, there is not a side yard �
�weekly basis to our our Zoning staff; therefore,
staff would like to make it clear that there is not a setback between those districts. Building and fire code would dictate what that separation would be. The new language reads: For
the purposes of this Ordinance, setbacks shall not be required for nonresidential structures located within Commercial, Office and Institutional and Industrial Districts that abut nonresidential
uses in Commercial, Office and Institutional and Industrial Districts. Ms. Ralston explained language has also been added to allow for a two foot infringement into the setback with the
roof overhang; however, if the overhang extends more than two feet, the setback will be measured from the drip line of the roof. That language reads:
Page 13 of 13 Setbacks shall be measured from the structure. If a roof overhang extends more than �
�e of the roof. Chairman Collier asked if board members had any questions for staff. Hearing no questions, Chairman Collier
opened the public portion of the hearing. No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition of the proposed text amendment. Chairman Collier closed the public hearing portion
of the meeting and asked for a motion from the board. Tamara Murphy made a motion to approve Text Amendment A-411 as noted. Lisa Mesler seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted
6-0 to recommend approval of Text Amendment A-411. Technical Review Committee Report October Chairman Collier reported the Technical Review Committee did not meet during the month
of October, but is scheduled to meet on November 7, 2012. Other Business Chris inquired if board members would be agreeable to changing the Planning Board meeting time
to 6:00 p.m. instead of 5:30 p.m. Chairman Collier stated changing the start time to 6:00 p.m. would be more convenient for the public, as well as for several board members. It was the
consensus of the board members to change the Planning Board meeting time to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Prinz inquired about the status of the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority right-of-way plat
stamp discussed at the October meeting. He noted the board had serious concerns that the stamp as drafted would transfer ownership of all the rights-of-way, easements, etc. to the utility
authority. reported the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority was appreciative of the change in the la�
�
In response to an inquiry by Vice Chair Hilla, Chairman Collier confirmed the new Planning Board meeting
would be held on December 6th. He also announced that David Weaver would be the Planning Board representative at the November 13th County Commissioners meeting that will begin at 3:00
p.m. Chairman Collier adjourned the meeting at 6:49 p.m.